It’s like you want another 9-0. SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser. |
The only people that believe this about this decision are the same ones who convinced themselves Colorado stood a chance in the first place. Most Americans disagreed with Colorado’s moving Trump off the ballot, and don’t care about the disputes between the judges on the secondary issues in this case. |
That's just dicta. |
Lol. This is the guy who said this: “What I have said is that I am confident that the Supreme Court would affirm Colorado Supreme Court’s decision based upon the objective law, which in this instance is Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Which is to say that I know that the Colorado Supreme Court decision is unassailable in every single respect under the Constitution of the United States.“ |
Where are you going to get the SCOTUS votes to allow the Congress’ action to stand, in this hypothetical scenario? It’s isn’t going to happen. |
Go ahead and celebrate 1,274 voters like your candidate. |
Are you kidding? You think that if Congress chooses not to swear in Trump because of the Fourteenth Amendment, that SCOTUS would overrule them? |
Of course I do and I think 5 of the judges just made that clear. |
^ outside of legislation that would be passed, that is. Which doesn't exist right now. |
Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously. |
No, the Supreme Court is not going to tell Congress that they have to swear in the other guy on January 21. Really? |
The 9-0 did not say that. Four only agreed that Colorado can’t do it. The legislation thing is made up bullshit that was irrelevant to the ruling. The 14th amendment has been applied to disqualify candidates for lower offices. No new legislation is needed. SCOTUS could have interpreted the Constitution, but they didn’t. The legislation requirement is not in the Constitution. |
Honey, I'm a conservative. I'm also a lawyer m. It's dicta. |
Dicta that is predictive. Why do you think they wrote it in the first place? |
Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about. |